0 votes

What Makes your General Election Vote so Magical?

If I said that if we all voted for a 3rd party candidate together as a strategy, just like our delegate strategy, and that we would get the following from it:

1. Millions of more people looking into Ron Paul and the cause of liberty.
2. Helping rid the belief that 3rd party candidates don't have a chance and people believing they are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
3. Shows millions how similar and responsible both parties are for the problems we now face via both the executive and congressional branches.
4. The GOP wouldn't be able to theorize that they could cheat us in 2016 because they knew that is why they lost in 2012.
5. The GOP would promote a libertarian candidate in 2016 because they wanted to win.
6. We would win with a libertarian president by a landslide in 2016

Would you do it?

What makes your general election vote so much more special than the votes we used for the delegate strategy, when a strategy like this can give us such amazing results?

Whether you believe Gary Johnson is a true libertarian or not, you can't deny that he doesn't have a proven executive record as 2 term governor of new mexico and that most of his positions are the same as a libertarians. The very contrast alone should be enough to call him a better candidate above "two evils". If he ran as an independent and didn't claim to be a philosophy and economics expert libertarian like many of you seem to be, would you vote for him?

Even if it didn't matter who the 3rd party choice was, if they were only slightly better than Obama or Romney, but this strategy would still achieve all of these ends... how does sabotaging potential like this not weigh on anyone's conscious?

What makes your general election vote too good for a strategy like this?

FACTS:
-The GOP cheated us because they theorized they didn't need us.
-If they lose or win by only a slight margin and a 3rd party candidate, especially one claiming to be libertarian, doesn't do well at all, the GOP continues to theorize that everyone either compromised and voted for one of two parties, wrote in Dr. Paul, or stayed at home either through protest or normal lack of voter participation.
-If that theory is allowed to exist, that they don't need us to have a chance to win, they will continue to cheat and alienate us.
-All of our votes going to a 3rd party candidate, regardless of who it is, documents our votes the most accurately in protest of both parties, in this case, especially the GOP.
-Even if that third party candidate doesn't have enough to win, they would have enough to get on the national debates to do #1-3 of the above positive things.
-Even if that third party candidate doesn't win, we still destroy the GOP's theory and have amazing leverage for a true libertarian candidate in 2016.

So if the liberty movement has this kind of potential for both waking people up to their libertarianism, growing the movement, helping change peoples' minds about the 2 party system and how it's rigged but can be circumvented, furthering the liberty movement's takeover of the GOP and in turn whitehouse...

...how is your general election vote above sabotaging that kind of potential?

How does it not become the conscious thing to actually help the movement reach that potential when it's possible?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Because ...

♫♪ Every vote is sacred
♫ Every vote is great
♪ If a vote is wasted
♪♫ Fox gets quite irate.

My Turd Sandwich '12 bumper stickers arrived today!

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Now only if someone actually

Now only if someone actually invalidated anything I said in this post...

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

wolfe's picture

lol...

nice...

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I disagree with the first "fact"

I think I agree with your conclusion, although I had a hard time following some of it, but I want to disagree with something you call a fact: "The GOP cheated us because they theorized they didn't need us."

Here's an alternate view: they cheated us because it was a politically expedient way to get Romney to the nomination with minimum uncertainty, and Romney is all about political expediency. If Ron Paul's six states had been recognized, and he had been allowed to speak, there was a chance, maybe not a huge chance but a very real chance, that he could have taken the nomination away from Romney. Or if not that, then it could have embarrassed Romney greatly, because if Ron Paul were allowed to speak his mind in prime time he would have poked holes in *lots* of what Romney is campaigning on. In many cases, things that Obama is also doing and that Romney can therefore count on not being challenged about in the general election.

Now they have to fix the problem of having pissed off the Revolution. And they're only thinking about November at this point. There's really only one way that the Revolution could hit them where it hurts, and that's a third-party run. (I'm assuming, and I think it's a very safe assumption, that only a tiny percentage of people in the liberty movement will protest by voting for Obama.)

It's not that they're afraid of a third party *winning*. They're afraid of a third party "Nadering" Mitt, by hurting him in the electoral college the way Nader hurt Gore. They're afraid of this because even without Ron Paul as a third-party candidate (which would be a complete game changer) we DO have the numbers to Nader the bastards and send them a clear message in the only language they understand: you can't shit on the Revolution and expect to win elections.

Note that backing a third party challenger to Nader the bastards this November is not even slightly in conflict with the "taking over the GOP from within" strategy. Which makes it a bit curious that the most vocal opponents of organizing an effort to show the GOP that they can't get away with what they did last week and expect to win elections that way, are the people who have signed the RNC loyalty oaths and want others to do the same.

Ignore anyone who wants you to respond to the RNC dissing Ron Paul by signing an RNC loyalty oath. I can't see ever doing that, but especially not now, not a week after they broke their own rules and shamelessly stole the opportunity from Ron Paul that he had won fair and square.

Show them in the only language they understand that you can't shit on the Revolution and expect to win elections. Nader the bastards.

1. You misunderstood what you

1. You misunderstood what you quoted. Them being given options on HOW to make it easier to nominate Mitt with the image of a unified party, they chose to cheat us because out of their options... it didn't seem like it had much negative consequence. I'm not saying they decided to cheat us just because they could.

2. If you think we could have changed the minds of hundreds, nearly a thousand, of neo-cons that already disliked paul and had the idea that we were only helping obama... you've got to be kidding ;P. This is why Paul himself said we couldn't win at the point he did. He wanted us to push for the sake of him being nominated so he could speak.

(For those who STILL somehow don't understand)
3. They're not afraid of us causing them to lose enough is the point... hence why they theorized they could cheat us in the first place. The strategy I've outlined allows us to destroy the theory completely BY "nadering" or at least coming close to it. Not only would they realize their mistake in thinking they could cheat us, they would then realize that if they let us get our way... they could guarantee a win since we pull from both parties and independents. Intentionally nadering them now gives us the upper hand in 2016 for a true libertarian being the nominee.

I wrote this while reading through... didn't realize you were going to end up agreeing with me lol

I like that though... "Let's Nader Them!"

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

wolfe's picture

Since you specifically asked...

I will comment on this, though I normally would not.

I volunteered in 2008 to Ron Paul, contributed large sums to the grassroots and maxed to the campaign itself. I encouraged many to vote, without caring whether they actually did or not.

The money I donated, and hours I spent at gun shows was not to collect a single vote, though I am sure collected many.

I did not care about winning, I did not care about votes. Ron Paul and the election was an entry to discussion and education.

You cannot win through voting. You can only win through education. Even if Gary outright obtained Ron Paul's endorsement, he would do no better than your standard LP candidate.

You are focusing your efforts in the wrong place. Educate yourself, live correctly, teach others how to educate themselves and live correctly.

When enough people have done so, politics will be irrelevant.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

You didn't comment on the

You didn't comment on the strategy that would effectively give the listed results and you didn't comment on the question of why one vote is okay to use for a strategy such as this (delegate strategy) but not for one that helps the movement elsewhere (introducing the name of Ron Paul in national debates for more people to do their own studying and our upperhand in 2016 that this would achieve within the GOP).

Invalidate the strategy's potential and the reasoning behind each point of evidence that it would work.

Why wouldn't this strategy work?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

wolfe's picture

I stated why any strategy based on voting is a waste of time.

Why would I bother going into details of any voting strategy when they all fail?

My point was that my support for Ron Paul has nothing to do with votes. I supported the grassroots because they were willing to educate people for nominal cost because they believed in a vote, or believed others would, etc.

It's about using the opportunities provided. You argue that a vote sends a message, it does not. You argue it holds some value, it does not.

Votes are irrelevant, for RP, GJ or anyone else. Education is the point.

And quite frankly, I think you personally would do very well to spend some time learning, and then teaching what you have learned.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Here is all of your arguments

Here is all of your arguments against the strategy that you just gave in context.

"I don't have to explain why it will fail, because the past that has many different circumstances tells me that a strategy that hasn't been fully exercised before in that said past, will fail."

"Your vote doesn't send a message, because your vote doesn't send a message."

"Your vote holds no value, because it doesn't hold value."

You can do better than that.

Feel free to actually show how getting Johnson into the national debates, doesn't expose many to "Ron Paul" and "liberty" which they would then go on to educate themselves on via youtube and the such.

Feel free to actually show how all of our votes showing the GOP that they could have won rather than lost or that they could have won by a much larger margin doesn't give us plenty of leverage in 2016, that it doesn't help deter them from alienating us again and promotes the idea that a libertarian as the nominee and their supporters would help the GOP win.

I'm pretty sure that garnering interest for libertarian principle and helping with the GOP takeover are both great things.

And this strategy shows how, all of our votes collectively, both sends a message AND holds value.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

wolfe's picture

You are right.

I was stating my beliefs on the subject more than an argument, mostly because the topic of voting doesn't generally interest me and don't spend a lot of time convincing people not to vote. Which is why I would not have commented on the post.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

ecorob's picture

i don't hate gj, i'll just ask you plainly...

what makes you think gj would do ANY better in the election than RP?

nobody (really) knows him...unless you are an ALIVE American paying attention and, then, you still don't really know him

RP, with ALL of us, got railroaded in broad daylight!

people who think we'll just switch to gj are delusional...its like voting for aaron keyes, or something...

gj won't hold a candle to what RP has accomplished...plus, he's NOT one of us

why don't you just write me in...i have as much chance to win the potus as gj does

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

You missed the point

You missed the point completely and didn't invalidate anything I've said in this post regarding the strategy. It's almost as though you ignored or didn't read the strategy (the entire post) all together or didn't understand it.

Gary Johnson or any other 3rd party candidate that received all of our votes to get into the national debates would, REGARDLESS of whether they had a chance to win or not: (let me copy paste what you completely missed)

"1. Millions of more people looking into Ron Paul and the cause of liberty.
2. Helping rid the belief that 3rd party candidates don't have a chance and people believing they are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
3. Shows millions how similar and responsible both parties are for the problems we now face via both the executive and congressional branches."

"-All of our votes going to a 3rd party candidate, regardless of who it is, documents our votes the most accurately in protest of both parties, in this case, especially the GOP.
-Even if that third party candidate doesn't have enough to win, they would have enough to get on the national debates to do #1-3 of the above positive things.
-Even if that third party candidate doesn't win, we still destroy the GOP's theory and have amazing leverage for a true libertarian candidate in 2016."

Pointing out that he doesn't have a chance to win doesn't invalidate the points I made about it being worth voting for him.

Feel free to go back, reread it, and reply with something relevant to what I actually said.

To prove you missed it completely, in your own words, what argument am I making and what is the overall strategy I've explained?

If you understood what you just responded to... you should be able to answer this question easily... but I already know you can't. You were replying to points I never made.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Also, I apologize for the

Also, I apologize for the attitude of the last post. I had asked countless GJ haters for evidence to backup their claims and it took writing a post like that with arrogance to finally get some real information. I can admit I'm wrong. GJ is a good candidate, but not a true libertarian.

I'm still going to vote for him for that reason, and even further more, this strategy.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally